On Friday 19 October 2007 10:58, Pete/Piet Delaney wrote: > Jan Wielemaker wrote: > > On Friday 19 October 2007 02:22, Pete/Piet Delaney wrote: > >> We are definitely not fine with CVS, the branch merging isn't > >> comfortable. I'm just wondering about maintaining the existing > >> CVS browsers and the build scripts if it's not a big deal. I'll > >> try the git-cvsserver path. If anyone has any war stories to share > >> on the path this would be an ideal time to share them. > > > > As for web browsing the history, our project was quickly convinced > > gitweb is a lot better than cvsweb. We are starting to get use to > > basic git. One developer works on CVS. This is a bit handicapped, > > but workable after a few patches to git-shell and git-cvsserver. > > Could you tell me a bit more about those patches and the need for using > git-shell (haven't even messed with that yet). One patch concerned handling "cvs update -p", which was accepted and I guess will end up in the stable version someday. One concerned handling "cvs diff -c", which I never submitted. I first tried a more general approach to get diff option processing complete, but I had to backtrack on that. Now I have a quite simple hack, but more complete coverage of diff option processing requires a bit more perl knowledge than I have. I submitted a patch for shell.c to make it call "git cvsserver server" if a commandline "cvs server" was passed to it, so you can do CVS+SSH compatible to normal CVS. I got so many comments I decided to keep it for myself for now. > I don't think we need to have any developers continuing to use CVS; > but I may be wrong. I think I read that there's a limitation to being > on the main branch and unfortunately most of out tags are on a release > branch. No, you can checkout any GIT branch as it it were a CVS module. --- Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
